The Enduring Effects of COVID for Cancer Care: Learning from Real-Life Clinical Practice.

For three years, COVID-19 has circulated among our communities and around the world, fundamentally changing social interactions, health care systems, and service delivery. For people living with (and receiving treatment for) cancer, pandemic conditions presented significant additional hurdles in an already unstable and shifting environment, including disrupted personal contact with care providers, interrupted access to clinical trials, distanced therapeutic encounters, multiple immune vulnerabilities, and new forms of financial precarity. In a 2020 perspective in this journal, we examined how COVID-19 was reshaping cancer care in the early stages of the pandemic and how these changes might endure into the future. Three years later, and in light of a series of interviews with patients and their caregivers from the United States and Australia conducted during the pandemic, we return to consider the potential legacy effects of the pandemic on cancer care. While some challenges to care provision and survivorship were unforeseen, others accentuated and amplified existing problems experienced by patients, caregivers, and health care providers. Both are likely to have enduring effects in the "post-pandemic" world, raising the importance of focusing on lessons that can be learned for the future.

Experiencing the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic Whilst Living With Cancer.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has resulted in considerable consequences for many cancer patients, exacerbating pre-existing systemic health system limitations as well as creating new challenges. From socially distanced clinics and the widespread introduction of telehealth, to the halting of clinical trials and the reassessment of what constitutes "essential" treatment, care in oncology has abruptly changed. There is currently limited analysis of cancer patients' experiences of the pandemic and its impacts on illness, wellness, and everyday life. Through semi-structured interviews with 54 people living with cancer during the 2020 phase of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Australia, we explore how patients experience illness and care in reflecting upon a range of pandemic challenges, including delay, distance, and vulnerability. We find that in some cases, these pandemic conditions redefined the meaning of essential cancer care, reconfigured expectations around clinical trials, constructed new affective distances, and amplified dread and fear for people living with cancer.

Paradoxes of pandemic infection control: Proximity, pace and care within and beyond SARS-CoV-2.

From the adoption of mask-wearing in public settings to the omnipresence of hand-sanitising, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has brought unprecedented cultural attention to infection prevention and control (IPC) in everyday life. At the same time, the pandemic threat has enlivened and unsettled hospital IPC processes, fracturing confidence, demanding new forms of evidence, and ultimately involving a rapid reassembling of what constitutes safe care. Here, drawing on semi-structured interviews with 63 frontline healthcare workers from two states in Australia, interviewed between September 2020 and March 2021, we illuminate some of the affective dimensions of IPC at a time of rapid change and evolving uncertainty. We track how a collective sense of risk and safety is relationally produced, redefining attitudes and practices around infective risk, and transforming accepted paradigms of care and self-protection. Drawing on Puig de la Bellacasa's formulation, we propose the notion of IPC as a multidimensional matter of care. Highlighting the complex negotiation of space and time in relation to infection control and care illustrates a series of paradoxes, the understanding of which helps illuminate not only how IPC works, in practice, but also what it means to those working on the frontline of the pandemic.

Accuracy of Case-Based Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in Maricopa County, Arizona.

We conducted a community seroprevalence survey in Arizona, from September 12 to October 1, 2020, to determine the presence of antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We used the seroprevalence estimate to predict SARS-CoV-2 infections in the jurisdiction by applying the adjusted seroprevalence to the county's population. The estimated community seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infections was 4.3 times greater (95% confidence interval = 2.2, 7.5) than the number of reported cases. Field surveys with representative sampling provide data that may help fill in gaps in traditional public health reporting. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(1):38-42. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306568).

Entanglements of affect, space, and evidence in pandemic healthcare: An analysis of Australian healthcare workers' experiences of COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to highlight both global interconnectedness and schisms across place, context and peoples. While countries such as Australia have securitised their borders in response to the global spread of disease, flows of information and collective affect continue to permeate these boundaries. Drawing on interviews with Australian healthcare workers, we examine how their experiences of the pandemic are shaped by affect and evidence 'traveling' across time and space. Our analysis points to the limitations of global health crisis responses that focus solely on material risk and spatial separation. Institutional responses must, we suggest, also consider the affective and discursive dimensions of health-related risk environments.

Interrogating the World Bank's role in global health knowledge production, governance, and finance.

BACKGROUND: In the nearly half century since it began lending for population projects, the World Bank has become one of the largest financiers of global health projects and programs, a powerful voice in shaping health agendas in global governance spaces, and a mass producer of evidentiary knowledge for its preferred global health interventions. How can social scientists interrogate the role of the World Bank in shaping 'global health' in the current era? MAIN BODY: As a group of historians, social scientists, and public health officials with experience studying the effects of the institution's investment in health, we identify three challenges to this research. First, a future research agenda requires recognizing that the Bank is not a monolith, but rather has distinct inter-organizational groups that have shaped investment and discourse in complicated, and sometimes contradictory, ways. Second, we must consider how its influence on health policy and investment has changed significantly over time. Third, we must analyze its modes of engagement with other institutions within the global health landscape, and with the private sector. The unique relationships between Bank entities and countries that shape health policy, and the Bank's position as a center of research, permit it to have a formative influence on health economics as applied to international development. Addressing these challenges, we propose a future research agenda for the Bank's influence on global health through three overlapping objects of and domains for study: knowledge-based (shaping health policy knowledge), governance-based (shaping health governance), and finance-based (shaping health financing). We provide a review of case studies in each of these categories to inform this research agenda. CONCLUSIONS: As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to rage, and as state and non-state actors work to build more inclusive and robust health systems around the world, it is more important than ever to consider how to best document and analyze the impacts of Bank's financial and technical investments in the Global South.

The Paradoxical Effects of COVID-19 on Cancer Care: Current Context and Potential Lasting Impacts.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has fundamentally disrupted the practice of oncology, shifting care onto virtual platforms, rearranging the logistics and economics of running a successful clinical practice and research, and in some contexts, redefining what treatments patients with cancer should and can receive. Since the start of the pandemic in early 2020, there has been considerable emphasis placed on the implications for patients with cancer in terms of their vulnerability to the virus and potential exposure in healthcare settings. But little emphasis has been placed on the significant, and potentially enduring, consequences of COVID-19 for how cancer care is delivered. In this article, we outline the importance of a focus on the effects of COVID-19 for oncology practice during and potentially after the pandemic, focusing on key shifts that are already evident, including: the pivot to online consultations, shifts in access to clinical trial and definitions of "essential care," the changing economics of practice, and the potential legacy effects of rapidly implemented changes in cancer care. COVID-19 is reshaping oncology practice, clinical trials, and delivery of cancer care broadly, and these changes might endure well beyond the short- to mid-term of the active pandemic. Therefore, shifts in practice brought about by the pandemic must be accompanied by improved training and awareness, enhanced infrastructure, and evidence-based support if they are to harness the positives and offset the potential negative consequences of the impacts of COVID-19 on cancer care.